Ministers and think-tanks push for strict limits on concessions to the
European ruling that prisoners should be allowed to vote, suggesting that it
should only apply to convicts serving short sentences.

In an attempt to limit the political fallout, there is likely to be a push to implement a threshold that would see those serving sentences longer than four years being excluded from votingPhoto: ALAMY

Serious offenders such as murderers should continue to be banned from voting, Civitas, the think-tank, said.

David Green, director of the group, suggested: "The Government should make only the smallest possible concession – perhaps by giving the vote to prisoners sentenced to six months or less. The ban should remain for all the others."

It came after The Daily Telegraph disclosed that prisoners will be given the vote in general elections for the first time in 140 years after David Cameron conceded there was nothing he could do to halt a European court ruling demanding the change.

Ministers are understood to be seeking to restrict the number of prisoners that will be allowed to take part in ballots.

They will push for strict conditions, including a ban on "lifers" and murderers from voting.

In an attempt to limit the political fallout, there is likely to be a push to implement a threshold that would see those serving sentences longer than four years being excluded from voting.

It is believed that judges may be given responsibility for eventually deciding which criminals are allowed to vote when they are sentenced.

However, prison reform groups welcome the the proposed law change.

Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said: "A historic decision to enfranchise serving prisoners would mark the end of the archaic punishment of civic death dating back to the Forfeiture Act of 1870," she said.

"In a modern prison system you would expect prisoners to have rights and responsibilities and politicians to take an active interest in their constituency prisons.

Jon Collins, campaign director for the Criminal Justice Alliance which represents almost 50 organisations, said the decision was "long overdue".

"The UK's ban on prisoners voting serves no useful purpose, while damaging efforts to rehabilitate prisoners and reduce reoffending.

"Voting is a right, not a privilege, and the Government is doing the right thing by acting now to overturn this outdated and illegal ban."

Former justice secretary Lord Falconer said he disagreed with the European Court of Human Rights ruling but accepted that the Government had to comply with it.

He said countries should be able to say that convicted prisoners cannot vote.

"But in relation to the blanket ban right across convicted prisoners, the European Court of Human Rights said that's not in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.

"I disagree with that conclusion but it's what their view is and we have ultimately got to comply with it."

John Hirst, a convicted kilelr, who took the case to the European Court of Human Rights, said: "The whole thing about this is that in this system where you've got a democracy, that people can put pressure and lobby in Parliament for changes in the law and improved conditions, but you can't do that if you haven't got the vote.

"All prisoners can do is riot, if they've got a complaint, so you've got to give them this legitimate channel to bring their issue in."

For months, the Government’s lawyers have tried to find a way to avoid allowing 70,000 British inmates the right to take part in ballots.

But on Wednesday a representative for the Coalition will tell the Court of Appeal that the law will be changed following legal advice that the taxpayer could have to pay tens of millions of pounds in compensation.

The decision, which brings to an end six years of government attempts to avoid the issue, opens the possibility that even those facing life sentences for very serious crimes could in future shape Britain’s elections.

Senior government sources said Mr Cameron was “exasperated” and “furious” at having to agree to votes for prisoners, but the threat of costly litigation had forced his hand.

He was told that the Government faced a series of compensation claims from prisoners and potential legal action from the European Union if it did not agree to a change.

“This is the last thing we wanted to do, but we have looked at this from every conceivable angle and had lawyers poring over the issue,” a senior government source said.

“But there is no way out and if we continued to delay then it could start costing the taxpayers hundreds of millions in litigation.”

The Prime Minister is likely to face criticism from some in his own party for allowing Europe to dictate the law on such a sensitive issue. Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, has previously said it would be “ludicrous” to give inmates the right to vote.

Critics of the move have long argued that those who are guilty of preying on society should lose one of the most basic rights of a citizen.

But the decision will please the Liberal Democrats, who have campaigned for the law to be changed.

Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, is understood to have taken a personal interest in examining how the system could be altered.

Laws prohibiting the right of prisoners to vote were formalised in the 14th century, when the concept of “civic death” was established.

After the 1867 Reform Act gave working men the right to vote, the Forfeiture Act established the practice that those who were guilty of felonies could not vote.

In 2004, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the blanket ban imposed by Britain on its prisoners’ right to vote was discriminatory following a legal challenge by John Hirst, who was jailed for killing his landlady with an axe.

The Strasbourg-based court said each country could decide which offences should carry restrictions on voting rights. Most other European nations allow some prisoners to take part in elections. But despite two separate public consultations, Jack Straw, Labour’s justice secretary, failed to implement any changes.

Legal experts have suggested that the bill for compensation could rise to more than £50 million if prisoners are not given the vote. In May Lord Pannick, a cross-bencher, said there were 70,000 prisoners who could sue, with each in line for damages “in the region of £750”.

Earlier this year the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe warned the Government that its failure to act could lead to a string of compensation claims.

It raised the prospect that Britain could be the first country to fall foul of new powers which came into effect earlier this month. Potential sanctions include suspension or expulsion from the Council of Europe — a separate body from the EU.

Last year, Peter Chester, who raped and murdered his niece, launched a legal challenge claiming his human rights were being breached by the refusal to allow him to vote.

The case was thrown out but Chester’s appeal will be heard tomorrow and that is when the Government will make its statement. Its lawyers will acknowledge that Britain is in breach of the European court’s judgment and a legal amendment is needed.

Further details about the limits ministers want to see in place are likely to follow before Christmas. One proposal would see inmates being given a vote based on their last postal address to prevent an entire prison voting in one constituency.

The Prison Governors Association has warned that the ban hampers inmates’ rehabilitation.

Other groups that cannot vote include peers, the Royal family, the criminally insane and people convicted of election-related corruption.